The Emperor Justinian I commissioned the final and current structure in 532, inaugurating the completed Hagia Sophia in 537. First, we can draw two conclusions from the history of construction on the site of Hagia Sophia. Two prior churches stood on the site, the first in 360 and the second in 415, but rioters burnt both churches down. Thus the third version, the Hagia Sophia, represents resilience and longevity. For the emperor did not surrender to the rioters and refrain from commissioning a third church. Neither did the Hagia Sophia suffer the fate of the previous two buildings, showing a permanence or longevity in its construction.

Second, Bordewich mentions the construction of Hagia Sophia in the context of Justinian’s reign. He casts the emperor in a positive light, claiming that he labored for harmony among the Eastern Orthodox Church, established a law code, and enlarged the empire. To this Bordewich adds, “He [Justinian] also erected hundreds of new churches, libraries and public edifices throughout the empire. Hagia Sophia, completed in 537, was his crowning architectural achievement.” The Hagia Sophia is joined to Justinian’s architectural and educational expansions, marking a climax of his efforts.

I agree with the article’s connection of Hagia Sophia with the expansion of the empire; setting a building in its context is quite proper and good history. However, measuring the motives and character of an emperor from 1500 years ago becomes a bit difficult. I cannot embrace, without further evidence, the positive emphasis that Bordewich holds for Justinian and thus the Hagia Sophia.

The builders imported construction materials from Egypt, Syria, Ephesus, and Thessaly. Dedicated to the “Wisdom of God,” referring to the incarnate Jesus Christ, the place immediately held religious significance for Eastern Orthodox Christianity. For Justinian claimed, “Solomon, I have outdone thee!” The quality and international sources of construction materials, along with the title of the building itself, indicate its original religious significance. One writer, quoted in the Smithsonian Magazine, remarks in sum, “For Greeks, it symbolized the center of their world. Its very structure was a microcosm of heaven, a metaphor for the divine mysteries of Orthodox Christianity.” Eastern Christianity emphasized the subjective and mystical side of the faith, in contrast to the West’s development of systematic doctrine and church order. The magnificent and even eclectic Hagia Sophia, as the author correctly suggest, marks its religious power.

The architectural details reveal the political relevance of the building and the city of Byzantium. Just as Byzantium as city culturally combined the east and the west, so this blend appears in the architecture of the basilica. The marble pillars reflect a Roman shade, as do its dome and expansive interior, however, the curved archways indicate an eastern influence. Yet moreover the mosaics of gold and fine ornamentation suggest the artistic style of the east.

We should note however, that these features constitute its original architecture. Authors sometimes fail to distinguish between the times, lumping all of the building’s characteristics into a single sighting. Bordewich falls into no such trap and analyzes the story of Hagia Sophia by accounting for its distant past, near past, present, and future. We need to account for the changes in time. Only then can we discover the dynamic significance of for politics and world religion.

The current struggle concerning the renovation of the Hagia Sophia is quite straightforward. Since the original Christian iconoclastic mosaics were covered by later Islamic artists, renovators face the choice of whether or not to remove the later works to reveal the original art or restore the building but leave the Islamic pieces intact. There are also structural and finance difficulties, such as the threat of earthquakes and unknown, but probably high, cost of renovation.

The religious side of the struggle is much more complex. While not separable from the above comments, each faction of religio-cultural society reflects a different attitude towards the Hagia Sophia. We cannot mention each in detail or even in brief as Bordewich does, but we can offer an example. He writes, “To more ideological Islamists, Hagia Sophia proclaims Islam’s promise of ultimate triumph over Christianity.” Represented in the artwork itself, as the Islamic mosaics cover the Christian, Muslims find power in the possession of such the Hagia Sophia. We do not know if or how or to whom the building will remain, but as long as it lasts, it will contain a beauty and some significance for all.